How bibliometric evaluation makes the academia an ‘Iron Cage’: Evidence from Chinese academics

Abstract

Abstract In response to the escalating reliance on bibliometrics for research evaluation within Chinese universities, this study delves into the far-reaching impact of this trend. Through comprehensive interviews with 15 academics from research-intensive universities encompassing diverse demographics, including gender, age, academic rank, and knowledge domains, the research sheds light on the consequences of bibliometric evaluation at individual and organizational levels. The findings expose how bibliometric evaluation practices can disrupt scholarly autonomy, undermine self-efficacy, erode motivation for innovative research, and trigger opportunistic behaviors among university academics. These outcomes, akin to the ‘Tragedy of the Commons,’ not only hinder institutional progress but also corrode the fabric of collegiality, and result in the performance paradox. The dominance of administrative logic over academic logic has transformed individual researchers and universities into participants in a system of administrative conformity, altering the essence of academic pursuit. Despite China’s earnest efforts to reform university research evaluation, the Chinese bibliometric evaluation sustains a cycle of self-reinforcement that impedes reform progress, particularly in terms of peer review. It is suggested that adopting a nurturing, nuanced approach to bibliometric evaluation is imperative for maintaining a harmonious academic ecosystem and fostering genuine societal advancement.